Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

readOnlyHint=true is already annotated, and the description adds that the response includes an unread count, which is useful return context. However, it omits pagination behavior despite the cursor parameter, and does not discuss rate limits or case visibility.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the little it conveys, though it could be slightly richer without losing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with annotations covering read-only safety, the description covers purpose and one return detail. It leaves the cursor parameter unexplained and does not clarify pagination or the distinction from get_support_case, leaving gaps for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single optional cursor parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it. The agent receives no explanation of what cursor does (pagination) or how to use it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (support requests) and adds the unread count. It distinguishes from get_support_case (singular get) and file_support_case (create) by implying a collection, but does not explicitly name alternatives or scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like get_support_case for a single case or mark_support_case_read. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.